ABC:Atheists Debate Christians

[Christina]

Christians use debate to offer proof of GodABC broadcasts matchup with 'Rational Response Squad'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posted: May 10, 20071:00 a.m. EasternBy Bob Unruh© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron Christian evangelist Ray Comfort and former child actor Kirk Cameron have used a televised debate with a pair of atheists to present the Gospel message to an audience estimated in the millions. "I'm very, very encouraged," Comfort told WND after the first part of the 90-minute program was broadcast at ABCNews.com. A shortened version of the program was aired on the network's "Nightline" as well. "I don't think you can argue people into the Kingdom of Heaven," Comfort said. "It's a moral issue. People love their sins and they're going to hold onto them. But we're talking about eternity and it's not to be trifled at." But he said he takes seriously the biblical instructions to preach the word. "Our agenda is just to preach the Gospel, to make a very clear Gospel proclamation that people can understand," he said. As WND reported, the idea for the debate developed after several atheists launched the Internet site Blasphemy Challenge, which offers to send people a DVD if they post on Youtube.com a video of themselves condemning themselves to hell. The self-described "Rational Response Squad" said its DVD, "The God Who Wasn't There," was described by the Los Angeles Times as "provocative – to put it mildly." "There's only one catch: We want your soul," the website said. "It's simple. You record a short message damning yourself to Hell, you upload it to YouTube, and then the Rational Response Squad will send you a free 'The God Who Wasn't There' DVD." "You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: 'I deny the Holy Spirit,'" the website instructed. "Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, 'Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.'" ABC told of the website and the hundreds of responses in a story, getting Comfort's attention. He contacted the network and offered a debate challenge to the atheists. He was given 13 minutes in the debate to present his proof of God, and he used the simple illustration of a soda can. Holding it up, he asked if there had been a design and manufacture process to reach that stage – a cylindrical container with a message printed on the outside and a product on the inside. If so, there must have been a designer and maker, he concluded. He said a similar proof is available with a painting: Take a dozen scientists into a lab and show them a painting, then ask whether there was, in fact, a painter, he said. Looking at the creation the world is documents the Creator, he said. "You cannot have a creation without a Creator," he suggested. He also offered the proof of a conscience, which every person has, and third, a conversion. "The greatest truth is when God reveals himself to you," he said. He said the underlying problem was significant. "There is something more sinister here than a few people not believing in God," he said. "Why would so many be so bitter against Christianity in particular? "Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Muhammed or Gandhi?" he asked. "We made our own video clip and posted in on Hollywoodblasphemy.com to expose why." The debate was moderated by Martin Bashir. ABCNews said the taping, which took place last weekend, was done before "a mixed crowd of atheists and Christians at Calvary Baptist Church in Manhattan. "It wasn't long before temperatures began to rise inside the auditorium," ABCNews said. "I want to pull back the curtain and show that the No. 1 reason that people don't believe in God is not a lack of evidence, but because of a theory that many scientists today believe to be a fairytale for grownups," said Cameron, referring to the theory of evolution, in which he used to have faith. Atheist Brian Sapient and his "comrade, a woman who goes by the name of Kelly" then responded with their own beliefs. The message boards and blogs started heating up as soon as the first segment was broadcast. "I can't think of anything more spiritually impotent than a face off between fundie Christians and fundie atheists," wrote pagani66w on the ABC site. But another, Christianthinker88, said that attitude would be expected. "You can't argue with people that don't believe in God, they hate Him and want nothing to do with Him. So if thier (sic) heart is hard only God himself can soften it, not man." "God does not exist. All religions are based on superstition and mythical deities. Not one deity can be proven to exist," concluded naturesprophet. But tuffcaci said the clear "hatred" on the part of the atheists made the Christians' point for them. "I think the Rational Response Squad members are pretty scary and I think that their hatred for God proves that there is in fact a God!" Tuffcaci said. "Do you not understand that we have the original Dead Sea Scrolls and epistles to verify what we have in our Bible to be true?" asked heistheroc. "Do you not realize that the predictions in the Bible that have come true are proof alone that the Bible is inspired?" "PLEASE CHOOSE WISELY!!!" begged AHAVA777. "Life here is but a vapor … Kirk and Ray have the courage given to them by the Holy Spirit, and watching them blesses our hearts." Comfort said the Bible tells Christians, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." But, he said, "When one person listens to me share the gospel, it thrills me." Comfort and Cameron also have collaborated on The Way of The Master, an online teaching site that coaches Christians on how to explain their own faith. Comfort said his only difficulty presented itself through the "rudeness" of members of the audience who didn't support his position, and interrupted and heckled during the debate. "I just let them rail," he said. Comfort is no stranger to challenges. He's the Christian leader who produced Gospel tracts that look like $1 million bills, a situation on which WND has reported previously. The tract repeatedly has attracted the authority of the U.S. Secret Service, even though there is no such thing as a real $1 million bill. The agency several times has confiscated the tracts from people who have been handing them out. Cameron also said he was "taken aback" by the aggression exhibited by atheists. "The atheists made it very clear they didn't like what we said," Cameron explained. "They were full of mockery and sarcasm, belittling the many great scientists and intellectuals who recognize the existence of a Supreme Being. But the average American isn't viciously anti-God. In fact, polls show that more than 90 percent believe in His existence. Our hope is that the program will cause people to think deeply about the evidence presented, and challenge them to consider this most important issue of life." Comfort and Cameron say they've already gotten encouraging e-mail from one audience member. "Good job," the viewer wrote. "Although I received my invitation to the show via the atheist camp, I must confess that I was impressed with the two of you (and that I was embarrassed by at least two atheist audience members, whose hostile questions bordered on heckling – I admired your calm and courteous responses). ... I find the 'Design means there was a Designer' argument to be perfectly logical. I just have yet to come across convincing evidence that this Master Designer of the Universe inspired the Judeo-Christian Bible."

 

[jodycour]

Good information!Thanks!

 

[Tyrel]

That was a terrible debate on both ends. Ray and Kirk were hopeless, and the Rational Response squad, though rude and disrespectful, certainly won the debate.I've watched it over and over again. It's so sad what they weren't prepared to answer.They have made some stupid points in the past though;http://youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58IThere is no question, the debate became a disgrace for the Christian world except in one thing; that Kirk was humble giving his answers, and didn't let his tongue loose easily.

 

[Tama]

Debating Christianity isn't going to help. Jesus never said to argue out belief, he said - you are the letter written to this world. You are the candle that will bring light into dark places... That tells us that the truth will come from within us. It will open people's eyes on who Jesus is...

 

[Wakka]

I find that it helps to go to parks and talk to people about their faith. If they are agnostic, why not make them think about faith. Maybe they'll consider it and change their ways. Then they too can help contribute and spread the word of God.

 

[Tyrel]

(Tama;11404)
Debating Christianity isn't going to help. Jesus never said to argue out belief, he said - you are the letter written to this world. You are the candle that will bring light into dark places... That tells us that the truth will come from within us. It will open people's eyes on who Jesus is...
I don't know how long you've been a Christan, or how many people you've helped to the faith, but I will warn you that this attitude is dangerous.Have you the New Anberlin CD; Cities? Listen to the last song called 'Fin'. Beautiful song.Debating Christianity has been done from the apostolic age. Did Justin Martyr just tell Trypho that he believed and that was it? Did Paul back down when people wanted to know the truth? Did Stephen die saying 'I just know it's true, OK?!' No, they stood out as lights that shine for us to this day. Speak Truth, let those who have never heard it hear it. Debating is simply a method of bringing two mutually exclusive views to the table, and letting the people who don't know enough of either side, make an informed decision. To step back and to not debate, that is dangerous to everyone. Yes the fathers thought debating made truth loose some of it's integrity in many cases, and in many cases this is true. However, don't ever forget the Gospel teaching;"Always be ready to offer an apologia {explanation} to everyone who asks concerning the faith that you have". ~1 Peter 3:15http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...1&context=verse

 

[Tama]

[quote name='Biblical Tetragramaton;11455][FONT=Verdana]I don't know how long you've been a Christan' date=' or how many people you've helped to the faith, but I will warn you that this attitude is dangerous[QUOTE']Okay, to answer your first question - I've been a Christian my whole life, born into christian, God-loving family. My father was and still is a missionary (prison ministries). Also, I've gone thru 3 years of Bible college and now am volunteering for 'Emotional First Aid' phone consultaion. SO I'm in the loop. It is my own point of view at debating christianity. Christianity is based on our personal FAITH not facts.

 

[Tama]

Also, Jesus told us to go preach and be His witnesses. It is to preach about him, to point out His goodness, His mercy, His Love!!! This is why Jesus told them to wait for the Holy Spirit before they go out to preach and witness, and all Apostoles sat waiting in the 'upper room' for Holy Spirit and only went to preach after they received the 'promised' be cause transformation came with it!!! So God's word flows out of them, so people see His love in them, and so they have the unseen Power to heal and to speak gospel. He didn't tell them to Learn bible for debates, he told them to read Bible to strenghten their faith so it can speak for itself.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Since everything we see proves (to me at least) the existence of God, I've never considered it necessary to prove He does exist. Either people believe it or not. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove it. Nowhere in God's word does it say, "Go into all the world and prove I exist."

 

[Tama]

(Jon-Marc;11580)
Since everything we see proves (to me at least) the existence of God, I've never considered it necessary to prove He does exist."
Amen !!! I agree!

 

[DonaldJamesParker]

The atheists won the debate?? No way! The points made by the woman were about as relevant as how many angels can sit on the end of a pin and about as professionally presented as a valley girl Kirk Cameron carried the day. He did not debate. He gave his testimony. I had all the respect in the world for what he did that night. I am writing a sequel to my new book and included that debate in it. Kirk got kudos. Ray did not come across so well. He had made the claim they could prove creation without referencing the scriptures -- but he mentioned them more than once. And these same atheists are part of the group challenging people to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. There's some big time bad stuff going down here. Don

 

[Shingy]

He was given 13 minutes in the debate to present his proof of God, and he used the simple illustration of a soda can. Holding it up, he asked if there had been a design and manufacture process to reach that stage – a cylindrical container with a message printed on the outside and a product on the inside.If so, there must have been a designer and maker, he concluded.He said a similar proof is available with a painting: Take a dozen scientists into a lab and show them a painting, then ask whether there was, in fact, a painter, he said. Looking at the creation the world is documents the Creator, he said."You cannot have a creation without a Creator," he suggested.
Hahaha!I watched the clip, they're amateurs.

 

[Amy]

(Tama;11513)
Also, Jesus told us to go preach and be His witnesses. It is to preach about him, to point out His goodness, His mercy, His Love!!! This is why Jesus told them to wait for the Holy Spirit before they go out to preach and witness, and all Apostoles sat waiting in the 'upper room' for Holy Spirit and only went to preach after they received the 'promised' be cause transformation came with it!!! So God's word flows out of them, so people see His love in them, and so they have the unseen Power to heal and to speak gospel. He didn't tell them to Learn bible for debates, he told them to read Bible to strenghten their faith so it can speak for itself.
Dear Tama,Thanks for your views. Ofcourse, we shouldn't learn bible for debates and agreed that the light should shine through us.Then again, imagine if I am a non-believer and a total stranger who comes to you and asks... who is Jesus, would you answer me that He is the Son of God? What if I ask you to prove me he is the Son of God? Would you take time to explain me with references Or would you tell me, this is what I believe and if you can't see the light then it's your problem? In case you try to explain me by being so kind; one has already generated a debate as one thing leads to another and one might have further questions. My apology if I hurt you in any way.May all glory be his !Sincerely,-amy

 

[ÐøÞÞlégäñgèr]

http://nashville.christianpost.com/article...tians.say/1.htmhttp://www.christianpost.com/article/20070...th_Atheists.htmTo call the event a “debate” is an injustice, however, as the evening quickly devolved into an exchange of press releases between the two sides, interspersed with the typically nasty and ill mannered catcalls emanating from atheists in the crowd. ABC, in its wisdom, had specified that the crowd of one hundred would be evenly split between fifty atheists and fifty Christians.Stylistically, Mr. Cameron knocked the ball out of the park. He came across as likable, articulate, and sincere. Dare we say it, there is something almost Reaganesque in his ability to communicate. The atheist opponents mumbled responses, filled with "ums" and "you knows", and delivered their "zingers" with such obvious looks of intellectual contempt for Cameron and Comfort it was cringe inducing. ABC's "neutral" moderator, the unctuous Martin Bashir, whose claim to journalistic objectivity was first made in his pandering interview of noted bizarro Michael Jackson, did his best to. Bashir pressed Comfort and Cameron to respond to the atheist's taunt "who created the Creator?" suggesting strongly that the concept of an eternal Creator was inconsistent with all known logic and science.Mr. Comfort did a fine job of demonstrating the rationality behind belief in God, certainly a more erudite argument than the counter argument advanced by the atheists. Quite properly, he made the argument of a divine Creator based on the wonderful design which we see all around us every day. It's the same argument, Comfort noted, made by the greatest scientist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, three centuries ago.But theunpleasant nature of the atheists behavior on this evening apparently surprised both Cameron and Comfort. But long time observers of militant atheism conduct have come to be expected. The insufferable intolerance of the unholy trinity of militant modern atheists (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennnett, and Sam Harris) simply asserts its intellectual superiority, then proceeds to demonstrate its completely dogmatic resistance to fact. The group of militant atheists behind the self proclaimed "Rational Response Squad" has mounted a destructive campaign of online bullying in the so called blasphemy challenge, in which young Christian teenagers are socially coerced into making online rejections of God and faith. In oppostion, the antithesis of Cameron's and Comforts "Way of the Master Series."The arrogant young atheists behind this movement care not a whit for the young children or the families involved, they simply seek their 15 minutes of notoriety and fame. They compound their arrogance with chilling repetition of Joseph Goebbel's "Big Lie" philosophy. You may be familiar with those web banners claiming that Jesus was not a historical figure. The crowd at "Rational Response Squad" is behind those banners, caring little that the evidence of the existence of Jesus is overwhelming. Just ask the non-Christian historians of the day, including Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius.Ridicule, bullying, and shouting over the other fellow have been the chosen tactics of this particular brand of militant atheism since 1860, when the original miltitant atheist, Thomas Huxley (who claimed to be an agnostic, but behaved like a militant atheist) claimed victory over Bishop Samuel Wilberforce in the famous debate over Darwin's theory of evolution at the annual meeting of the British Natural History Association in Oxford. Huxley's "victory" that day was based not on factual superiority to Wilberforce, but instead in the subsequent repetition of a series of personal insults heaped on Wilberforce by Huxley.Mind you, not all atheists are boorishly rude and intolerant. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, demonstrates that non-belief can easily be consistent with the free and open exchange of ideas that has characterized Western Civilization for the past several centuries. That tradition, however, apparently is lost on these new militant atheists.But the tag team of Comfort and Cameron gave away the intellectual momentum when they made the fundamental error of choosing to have Mr. Cameron build the second half of their presentation in a refutation of Darwinian evolution. The historical precedent of the Wilberforce-Huxley debate should have suggested to them the lack of wisdom associated with making the concept of the existence of God hinge on the acceptance or non-acceptance of a particular scientific theory. Over the long trajectory of modern civilization, scientific theories may come and go, but God remains throughout.The two missed a central point here – almost every believing scientist ( and that would be about half of all scientists) could best be described as theistic evolutionists. Accepting the Darwin's scientific theory of evolution is not inconsistent with belief in God. Scientists Francis S. Collins, head of the human genome project, and Harvard's Owen Gingerich are but two of many scientists who accept Darwin and believe in God. Indeed, Darwin's staunchest ally in America, Harvard's Asa Gray, was a strongly believing Christian his entire life. This is not to say that Darwin's theory will ultimately not be replaced by another scientifically proven theory of evolution. Personally, I think that some theory will evolve that combines elements of intelligent design and Darwin's theory of natural selection. But there is an accepted process within the scientific community by which one theory is supplanted by another, and the intelligent design community, though excellent at pointing out the flaws in Darwinian evolution, has yet to set forth it's own testable theory.Cameron is right to point out the flaws in Darwin's theory, but wrong to suggest that acceptance of it is inconsistent with belief in God. The late Stephen Jay Gould, opponent of both the atheistic evangelist and biologist Richard Dawkins' brand of "completely random" Darwinian evolution, as well as scourge of the Young Earth Creationists, had it right. Science and religion are best viewed as "non-overlapping magisteria." Paraphrasing the words of the famous scientist H.P. Yockey, when it comes to concepts of God, we are amazed at how many scientists are actually talking religion, and how many theologians are actually talking science. The "Rational Response Squad" and their fellow militant atheists have failed spectacularly in their efforts to transform science into a religion. Mr. Cameron would be well advised in the future not to try and transform religion into science.